Jump to content

Talk:The Rebel Flesh/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited as I've gone along. Please feel free to revert anything you are not happy with, or where I have changed the information so that it is incorrect. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "The episode was filmed in the winter of 2010": It is usually better to specify a month, as readers in the southern hemisphere have a different idea of what this means.
  • "Prosthetics were used to create the Gangers' facial features, and doubles were cast for the actors" (I copy-edited the first part of the sentence): I'm not sure what this is trying to say. The doubles wore the prosthetics? The prosthetics were created for the doubles? Or doubles were cast to allow the Gangers to appear alongside their actor?
  • I changed it to "Prosthetics were used to create the Gangers' facial features, while doubles of the actors were used for scenes in which a character and his or her Ganger were both in a scene, but did not both show their face." If you can think of an easier/more consise way to put this, please go ahead. I'm not sure if I can say it in shorter words without it being unclear. Glimmer721 talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "achieved an "excellent" Appreciation Index of 85": Although I know that this is what 85 signifies, I'm not sure this is the place to say so as it appears that this article is rating 85 as excellent. I think just give the score here and save the rest for the main body.
  • "had not developed enough being only the first part": Had not developed enough as a story? Had not developed because it was a first part? Not developed enough for a first part? Again, this needs to be clarified.
  • "The computer-generated effects used for one scene was widely disapproved of.": I've a bit of a problem with this. Unless I've miscounted, the main body gives two reviews which say this. I don't think this is enough to justify "widely disapproved of".
Plot
  • "As the Doctor (Matt Smith) continues the unresolved TARDIS scan on the possible pregnancy of his companion Amy Pond (Karen Gillan)...": I'm not sure this adequately summarises it. Someone unfamiliar with the story-arc will not really understand what this means.
  • Solar tsunami is linked to solar flare. Is this made explicit in the story?
  • Overlinking: skeleton crew
  • "The crew controls": Are we treating crew as singular or plural? I would have thought plural so "control" would be better. Also "the crew awakens".
  • "The crew controls the Gangers from special control harnesses, operating the hazardous environment of the factory via the disposable bodies": A few points here: close repetition of "control", how can you operate a hazardous environment (do you mean operate in, or operate something else), and I think the point that the bodies are disposable would be better made earlier.
  • "away by losing their facial similarities and turn pale-white": I seem to remember they did not lose their facial similarities, they merely turned pale-white.
  • "who was replaced by a Ganger avatar prior to the beginning of the series": My understanding (possibly wrong as I'm no expert) was that it was unclear precisely when she was replaced.
  • "Her identity is revealed in "The Almost People" and she plays a larger part in "A Good Man Goes to War".": Did she not appear again at the end of the series?
Writing
  • "but bailed out
  • "He wanted them to appear relatable": I'm not sure "relatable" works here.
  • "In the early drafts of the script, there was a problem distinguishing the characters from their duplicates, and Graham and the production crew worked to make it more rational.": How? At the moment, the explanation seems to be implied in the following sentence, but maybe no such thing was intended.
  • In the interview Graham says, "The early drafts of the script were unintelligible. There were so many copies of people running around the place. We were sitting there with magic markers saying, "Is this a ganger person?" It got confusing, so we had to do a lot of rationalising of the script." I changed the sentence to "In the early drafts of the script, there were "so many copies of people running around the place" which made the story too confusing, so Graham and the production crew worked to make it more rational." If there's anything else you should be changed, please let me know. Glimmer721 talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Filming and effects
  • "The doubles were required to be the same height for camera height purposes, and wore wigs and other make-up to allow the back of their head to appear the same.": Surely all doubles need to be like this and such an explanation is unnecessary.
  • "The episode also contains some music from the real world.": Really not sure here about this phrasing. What other world is there? I understand the intention, but I don't think this is the way. Maybe "Several pop tracks were used" or "Contemporary music formed part of the music for the episode".
  • What other music was used in the story?
  • I assume "Cast notes" are common in all Doctor Who articles. If so, fine, but I have to say I don't think it is the best. Why focus in an encyclopaedia article on actors' previous Doctor Who appearances? Why should these be distinguished from other performances? If someone wants to know what else an actor did, they can follow the link. And why is it relevant that an actor previously appeared in Life on Mars?
As you say casts notes are common in Doctor Who articles, and I *am* a fan of it, should I just add it back? Clearly the GA review does not call for it's removal (in full context) although it does question it. Could we perhaps discuss this more? At a Doctor Who level (as against this article) as it's a general feature of Doctor Who articles, not just this article. Jasonfward (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would accept a "casting" section as encyclopaedic, but not a fairly trivial "these people have already appeared in Dr Who section". This comment made me check, and I notice that the Dr Who FAs do not have such a trivial section, nor did any of the other episode articles which I fairly randomly clicked on. A few do have casting information, but related to why actors were cast, not their previous history in the programme. With this in mind, I do not believe it is standard in Dr Who articles and therefore do not believe this section would be acceptable in a GA on the grounds of criterion 3b. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast and reception
  • "It received an Appreciation Index of 85, considered "excellent"": By who?
  • I imagine that it would be either the BBC or BARB who considered this to be "excellent". I tried a little digging around but found nothing "official" which suggests this, and I'm not sure how reliable the Doctor Who News Page would be for something like this. I don't doubt for a minute that it is true, but I would like a stronger source. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. For the record, I think something from the BBC or the media itself may be better, and I'm such material does exist somewhere as there is similar stuff out there: for example here and there is something here which mentions that 90 is considered "exceptional". However, no matter and I'm sure that the source is reliable enough, I just felt something more "independent" would be an improvement. Not a problem as far as passing this goes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • "as well as the advantage taken with the location filming for the monastery" How does this relate to Smith's "restrained" performance?
  • It doesn't. "As well as" does not mean they are related; in means "in addition to" or "and also". But the way that sentence is worded is weird, so I changed it to "and also praised the..." Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
  • Is this a reliable source?
  • It's been used in some GAs but it is easily replaced here by other sources, which I have done.
  • Ref 18 does not take you to the information cited.
  • Are there any written sources which may give more information? This seems a little light on details, and I wondered if there was a guide to the series in a magazine? If one hasn't been produced yet, maybe the information could be added later.
  • Spot checks otherwise fine.
  • Links: Checklinks shows that refs 16 and 23 change subdomain.
  • I don't know what that means and the links lead directly to the correct page...IGN always seems to do that (#16 has been fixed when I replaced it with the new URL). I have checked to make sure it has the same URL. How do I fix this? Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good and although I've left quite a list, I don't think there are any major obstacles. Should have no problems passing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I acutally perfer long lists. Thank you for your time! I've everything and let me know what you think about the AI and the music. I don't know what to do with the "change subdomain" thing. Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above: one sticking point on AI and a potential sticking point if the Cast notes section returns. I will pass once these final issues are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above. Glimmer721 talk 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the subdomain thing happens sometimes and I'm not too sure why or what is supposed to be done. Again, not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rebel_Flesh/GA1&oldid=1085921750"